Do you people agree to the case of war in Iraq though its happenned?
Also, do you people believe in / support Pre-emptive strike thingy?
Also, do you people believe in / support Pre-emptive strike thingy?
Pre-emption strike and Iraq; Do you agree?
- Thread starter firewall
- Start date
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
The war was necessary.
I don't see the Iraq situation as being a "pre-emptive" "thingy"
I have always felt action against it(by ANY administration) was just a continuation of the 91 campaign. Iraq had a set of things it had to do(and agreed to do) for the ceasefire. The never complied - thus game on.
As a whole - the "pre-emptive" doctrine can be a tricky game and each situation drives it's own outcome. I don't believe in a blanket "pre-emptive" policy - but I won't rule out using such a "tactic".
CkG
I don't see the Iraq situation as being a "pre-emptive" "thingy"
I have always felt action against it(by ANY administration) was just a continuation of the 91 campaign. Iraq had a set of things it had to do(and agreed to do) for the ceasefire. The never complied - thus game on. As a whole - the "pre-emptive" doctrine can be a tricky game and each situation drives it's own outcome. I don't believe in a blanket "pre-emptive" policy - but I won't rule out using such a "tactic".
CkG
I disagree totally with the case for invasion. It was built on lies and irrational fear produced by the Bush administration against a nation which had no WMD, posed no imminent threat, had no nuclear weapons and no drone planes ready to drop chem/bio on us.
As for pre-emption I can't agree with any nation who would attack another on the mere idea they pose a threat. As Iraq proved intelligence isn't good enough to be trusted in matters of pre-emtion and there is as well the fact that some administrations, the present one in fact, will spin any intel to fit their own agenda.
Also I'd ask anyone who actually agrees with pre-emption policy will they still agree with it when it's used against us?
The aspect for consideration for people who consider pre-emption strike as being right is to think of yourself as being on the recieving end....you know you haven't done anything wrong and you are being accused of doing 'that wrong' with the threat of usage of force on you.
I doubt the war on Iraq was anywhere near freedom or WMD's. Its plain lust and hunger for Iraq's oil reserves and the always present, be it fair or unfair (debatable), protection and support for Israel (no offense intended).
I doubt the war on Iraq was anywhere near freedom or WMD's. Its plain lust and hunger for Iraq's oil reserves and the always present, be it fair or unfair (debatable), protection and support for Israel (no offense intended).
No.
BTW - The longer that Bush's claim of WMD/imminent threat goes unsubstantiated by discovered evidence over there, the more people will disagree with the case of war.
Hell no.
Oh, I guess just for showing off some power, you know, we have nukes, we have Tomahawks and stay put,let us prepare to bust you guys...............
What did it say in Spider Man??????
...WITH GREAT POWER COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY...
Just ought to put that in Bush's mind and those affected by war fever
...WITH GREAT POWER COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY...
Just ought to put that in Bush's mind and those affected by war fever
Yeah that's a great excuse
The worlds most resourceful intelligence agencies informing the worlds most powerful leader should be able to provide a conclusive enough answer to "do we have enough evidence to believe Iraq is going to gas us, blow us up, or infect us within a weeks time." If the answer is something along the lines of "well, we think it's likely they posess WMD but we are not certain" then that is grounds for dismissal of a pre-emptive attack. Now if US intelligence came running up to the president out of breath claiming that there are troops movements involving the depolyment of these weapons then, yes, a "pre-emptive" attack seems justified because an unmistakable act of war has occured. Nothing about the evidence that's been presented to the American people should be called "unmistakable," ever. Not before the war, and not after. That being the case this war was simply not justified; it was a hostile act carried out in bad faith and the world now has good reason to regard us with increased skepticism. What are the other members of the "axis of evil" to think? Sure they may have dangerous motives, but you would think it wise to mitigate the motives themselves, not the aggressive symptoms of those motives. Now they could just as easily percieve the war in Iraq as an unmistakable act of war against them since they have, after all, been lumped into the same ball of wax. Who's to say they're not next? What would you do if felt you felt our nation was in immennat risk? Oh that's right, we already demonstrated that. I've always thought of escalation as a great way to solve problems.
Because Saddam and his WMDs were a direct threat to our children!
Oh won't someone please think of the children!
Yes, I know the sarcasm comes across badly, but many people (grasshopper26 among them) were actually using this argument at one time! lol
yup, Saddam would come up like the sniper hidden in his cars boot while his (dead) sons drive it around for him to shoot the children out.
Oh, this post of mine is indeed silly....
:frown:
I still remember Hopper making a thread titled something like "For the morons who are still against a war with Iraq" and posted a link to 9/11 videos.
XZeroII
Lifer
- Jun 30, 2001
- 12,572
- 0
- 0
yes. Iraq didn't comply with the conditions of it's surrender from the Gulf War.
Yes. If you saw a man pointing a gun at your child, would you just stand there until he pulled the trigger? No, you would launch some sort of pre-emptive strike against the man.
That would fall under the catagory of immenant risk, which did not exist for reasons I described above. If there were troop movements to deploy WMD, then you could compare that to "pointing a gun at your child." Picking up where we left off in 91 does not qualify immenant.
If I told you that the guy on the other side of town might, poissibly, maybe shoot your kid some day would you launch some sort of pre-emptive strike against the man.
That's why you read the rest of the his post.
I don't see the Iraq situation as being a "pre-emptive" "thingy" I have always felt action against it(by ANY administration) was just a continuation of the 91 campaign. Iraq had a set of things it had to do(and agreed to do) for the ceasefire. The never complied - thus game on.
As a whole - the "pre-emptive" doctrine can be a tricky game and each situation drives it's own outcome. I don't believe in a blanket "pre-emptive" policy - but I won't rule out using such a "tactic".
Iraq had plenty of time to comply, numerous resolutions, enough is enough.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter